The 

Religipus  Question 
in  Mexico 

REPLIES  TO  LUIS  CABRERA  AND 
JOSE  GASTELLOT 


BY 

FRANCIS  CLEMENT  KELLEY 

Author  of  “ The  Book  of  Red  and  Yellow,**  etc. 


1916 

The  Catholic  Church  Extension  Society 
of  the  United  States  of  America 

750  McCormick  Building 
Chicago 


“The  Religious  Question  in  Mexico” 

A REPLY  TO  MR.  LUIS  CABRERA 

By 

Francis  Clement  Kelley 

Author  of  “The  Book  of  Red  and  Yellow” 

Mr.  Luis  Cabrera,  right  hand  of  Don  Venustiano  Carranza,  has  come 
forward  with  a “reply”  to  “The  Book  of  Red  and  Yellow,”  on  behalf 
of  the  Constitutionalists.  His  work  was  published  in  Spanish  at  Vera 
Cruz,  in  a few  Mexican  papers  of  the  United  States,  in  the  Forum  maga- 
zine, and  lately  in  pamphlet  form  by  the  Carranza  junta  in  New  York. 
Such  a well-circulated  “ reply  ” deserves  to  have  the  dignity  of  special 
attention,  which  I hope  to  give  it  in  this  pamphlet. 

Mr.  Cabrera,  as  a citizen  of  Mexico,  should,  however,  be  known  to 
those  about  to  be  introduced  to  Mr.  Cabrera  as  an  author  and  apologist. 

My  inquiries  regarding  his  public  career  resulted  in  the  following 
interesting  statements : The  gentleman  is  a lawyer  who  practiced  in 
Mexico  City,  where  some  people  gave  him  the  name  of  “ El  Renagado,” 
which,  being  translated,  means  “ The  Renegade.”  This  name  was  applied 
because  of  his  activity  on  behalf  of  a foreign  corporation  which  held  the 
estate  called  “ El  Tlahualilo,”  and  against  which  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment was  proceeding.  I make  no  comment  on  the  justice  or  injustice  of 
Mr.  Cabrera’s  nickname.  He  had  it.  The  gentleman  was  also  some- 
thing of  a journalist.  He  wrote  many  letters  upholding  the  idea  of 
Revolution,  for  which  he  was  rewarded  by  being  made  an  important  man 
in  the  government  of  President  Madero,  who  appointed  him  President  of 
the  Law  School  of  the  University.  The  students,  however,  objected,  and 
went  on  a strike,  stating  that  such  an  appointment  was  a disgrace  to  the 
school. 

Mr.  Cabrera  was  then  “ elected  ” to  Congress,  presumably  by  the 
usual  Mexican  method.  There  he  represented,  principally,  Mr.  Gustavo 
Madero.  He  led  a body  in  Congress  called  “ la  porra,”  a group  using 
howling  mobs  to  support,  by  shouts  and  invectives,  the  policies  of  the 
great  Gustavo. 

Mr.  Cabrera’s  activities  as  a lawyer  led  him,  more  than  once,  to  stir  up 
international  difficulties  for  the  Government  of  Mexico.  Those  who 
know  him  mention  often  the  case  of  the  mine  business  of  S.  Gerenimo 
Taviche  in  the  State  of  Oaxaca. 


2 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


Mr.  Cabrera  does  not  love  those  who  stand  for  religion  of  any  kind. 
He  is  particularly  opposed  to  convents  and  nuns.  His  family,  however 
— so  it  was  stated  to  me  — is  in  refuge,  safe  from  his  fellow  Constitu- 
tionalists, and  protected  in  a convent  of  Catholic  nuns  at  Barcelona,  in 
Spain.  Consistency,  then,  is  no  jewel  in  the  crown  of  Mr.  Luis  Cabrera. 

I mentioned  that  Mr.  Cabrera  is  now  connected  with  the  Constitu- 
tionalists, but  perhaps  I must  revise  that  statement ; since  recently  I read 
in  Mexican  dispatches  that  a little  misunderstanding  had  arisen  in  Car- 
ranza Cabinet  councils,  and  that  this  gentleman,  with  two  other  shining 
lights,  had  withdrawn.  In  fact,  the  dispatches  intimated  that  Mr.  Cabrera 
had  gone  from  Vera  Cruz  to  the  healthier  climate  of  Progreso.  His 
“ reply,”  the  one  now  under  dissection,  was  dated  “ Merida.”  In  these 
days  of  modern  democracy,  the  old  saying  about  the  uneasiness  of  “ the 
head  that  wears  a crown,”  might  be  changed  to  the  still  more  palpable 
truth,  that  there  is  much  uneasiness  for  the  heads  that  do  the  systematic 
lying  for  the  Constitutionalist  faction  of  Mexico.  However,  Mr.  Cabrera 
seems  to  be  again  with  Mr.  Carranza  — at  least  he  was  two  weeks  ago. 

Before  going  farther,  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  say,  for  Mr. 
Cabrera’s  enlightenment,  that  the  name  of  the  author  of  “ The  Book 
of  Red  and  Yellow  ” is  not  “ Francisco  Elguero,”  but  Francis  (Francisco 
if  you  wish,  Sehor)  Clement  Kelley.  Mr.  Cabrera  made  what  might  char- 
itably be  called  a mistranslation  when  he  rendered  my  name  “ Francisco 
Elguero.”  Is  it  possible  that  he  preferred  to  render  it  thus  ? It  happens, 
you  see,  that  Francisco  Elguero  is  also  a journalist,  is  also  a lawyer,  also 
a leader  in  a political  party,  but  opposed  to  Mr.  Cabrera.  Is  it  possible 
that  Mr.  Cabrera  translated  my  name  as  he  did,  so  as  to  make  it  appear 
that  his  enemy  had  been  doing  something  very  reprehensible  in  Constitu- 
tionalist eyes  — telling  the  truth  ? Thus,  you  see,  he  might  kill  two  birds 
with  one  stone  — answer,  “The  Book  of  Red  and  Yellow,”  and  doom  to 
dark  destruction  his  able  rival.  If  Mr.  Cabrera  had  that  in  mind,  my 
respect  for  his  ability  increases,  in  proportion  as  my  respect  for  his  hon- 
esty decreases. 

Let  me  make  a few  selections  from  the  Citizen  Cabrera’s  answer,  and 
add  to  each  one  some  comments  in  my  own. 

Cabrera. — The  Catholic  clergy  (of  Mexico)  are  now  doing  the  same 
work  in  foreign  countries  that  they  did  in  i8§p  and  i860. 

Answer. — For  the  enlightenment  of  Americans  who  have  not  closely 
followed  the  history  of  Mexico,  I wish  to  explain  that  Mr.  Cabrera  refers 
here  to  the  French  intervention  and  the  setting  up  of  an  Empire  in  Mex- 
ico under  Maximilian.  This  was  done,  however,  not  by  the  clergy,  but 
through  the  influence  of  the  Conservative  Party  of  Mexico,  a political 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


3 


faction  not  in  any  way  connected  with  the  Church.  It  is  true  that  some 
of  the  clergy,  including  the  Archbishop  of  Mexico  City,  were  members 
of  the  party,  just  as  the  Democratic  or  Republican  parties  in  this  coun- 
try have  followers  among  the  clergy  of  all  denominations.  There  have 
always  been  certain  clerg}^men  of  Mexico  in  the  Liberal  Party,  and  cer- 
tain clergymen  in  the  Conservative  Party.  One  might  as  easily  blame 
the  Catholic  clergy  of  the  United  States  for  the  war  with  Spain,  because 
Archbishop  Ireland  was  a Republican,  as  blame  the  clergy  of  Mexico 
for  French  intervention  because  Archbishop  Le  Bastida  was  a Conserva- 
tive. Mexico  at  that  time  was  suffering  as  it  suffers  to-day  — from 
revolution.  As  Mr.  Cabrera  himself  states,  it  was  a far  more  bloody 
revolution  than  even  the  one  of  which  he  is  a distinguished  leader.  He 
says  himself  that  the  old  revolution  affected  his  country  far  more  deeply 
than  the  present  one.  That  explains  much.  Sick  at  heart,  the  leaders 
of  the  Conservative  Party  invited  the  intervention,  as  Mr.  Cabrera  says, 
of  Spain,  France  and  England.  France  intervened  and,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Conservative  Party,  an  emperor  was  sent  to  Mexico.  France  did  not 
intend  to  permanently  occupy  the  country;  but  did  intend  to  uphold  the 
Empire  until  such  time  as  it  was  properly  established.  The  Empire, 
however,  was  to  be  Mexican,  not  French.  The  country  was  given  a con- 
stitution. All  promised  well  enough ; but  the  Empire  idea  was  not  in 
accord  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  setting  up  of  a foreign  ruler,* 
however,  could  scarcely  have  meant  the  enslaving  of  Mexico.  William 
of  Orange  became  King  of  England  on  the  invitation  of  an  English  party, 
and,  while  the  Irish  have  presumed  to  doubt  his  success,  English  his- 
torians have  been  rather  kind  to  him.  George  the  First  of  England  was 
a German.  He  could  not  even  speak  the  English  language ; but  he  set 
up  a dynasty  which  has  adopted,  and  has  been  adopted  by,  the  English. 
One  of  German  George’s  descendants  is  busy  to-day  fighting  his  ances- 
tors. So,  even  if  Maximilian’s  government  had  been  successful,  that 
would  not  have  meant  necessarily  the  curtailing  of  the  liberties  of  the 
Mexicans.  It  might  even  have  meant  something  like  the  prosperity  of 
England. 

Mr.  Cabrera  asserts  that  the  Catholic  clergy  set  up  the  Maximilian 
government,  while,  as  a matter  of  fact,  the  clergy  were  just  as  much 
divided  over  the  question  of  finding  means  to  stop  the  bloodshed  and 
warfare  and  destruction  of  i860  as  were  the  rest  of  the  people.  Mr. 
Cabrera  may  be  a lawyer,  but  he  evidently  is  not  a logician.  It  seems  that 
if  he  can  find  the  name  of  a single  Catholic  clergyman  who  had  anything 
to  do  with  a movement  of  which  he  himself  does  not  approve,  he  considers 
it  sufficient  reason  for  condemning  all  the  Catholic  clergy  and  the  whole 
Catholic  Church  of  Mexico.  A schoolboy  would  reason  better.  Was  the 


4 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


Episcopal  Church  responsible  for  the  Southern  Confederacy  because  an 
Episcopal  bishop,  Polk,  fought  in  the  Confederate  ranks? 

Cabrera. — The  people  of  the  United  States  have  been  led  to  believe 
that  the  Catholic  religion  in  Mexico  has  no  freedom  whatever. 

Answer. — Very  true;  but  they  have  been  led  to  believe  it  because  it 
-has  been  proven  to  them,  and  that  in  the  most  effective  way  possible  — by 
Mr.  Luis  Cabrera  himself,  as  I will  presently  show. 

Cabrera. — The  Catholic  clergy  (of  Mexico)  have  invoked  the  aid  of 
the  American  Catholic  Church  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  influence 
of  their  country,  and  even  its  intervention  against  Mexico,  to  destroy  the 
work  of  Juarez. 

Answer. — The  Catholic  clergy  of  Mexico  have  done  nothing  of  the 
kind.  They  have  been  living  very  quietly  in  exile  at  different  points  in  the 
United  States  on  the  charity  of  their  fellow  Catholics ; for  they  came  to 
us  denuded  of  all  they  had,  some  of  them  dressed  as  peons,  through  the 
zeal  for  “ religion  and  liberty  ” of  Mr.  Cabrera  and  his  friends.  When 
American  Catholics  saw  their  sad  condition,  they  were  filled  with  indig- 
nation, and  this  indignation  was  not  confined  to  Catholics  alone,  but  was 
shared  by  Protestants.  Then  Americans  began  to  study  Mexico  and 
learned  about  the  Laws  of  Reform.  We  knew  that  no  country  calling 
itself  a democracy  can  live  under  such  tyranny ; so  we.  Catholics  as  well 
as  Protestants  — but  all  Americans  — called  the  attention  of  our  Gov- 
ernment to  these  laws,  and  told  our  people  exactly  what  the  Constitu- 
tionalists aimed  at.  The  Mexican  clergy  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  matter.  It  was  Americans  who  pointed  out  to  the  American 
Government  the  deception  practiced  by  the  Carranzistas ; and  Americans 
will  continue  to  point  this  out,  until  Mexico  begins  to  learn  that  democ- 
racy and  tyranny  are  not  synonymous  terms. 

Cabrera. — The  propaganda  of  the  Mexican  bishops  and  clergy  in  the 
United  States  aims  at  making  the  Constitutionalists  appear  as  denying 
guarantees  of  liberty  and  as  persecuting  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy. 

Answer. — There  was  no  need  of  such  a propaganda.  Mr.  Cabrera 
himself  says  that  religious  bodies  should  be  absolutely  without  what  he 
calls  “ temporal  power  ” ; by  which  he  means  that  the  Church  (and  this 
includes  all  denominations,  as  he  specifically  states)  should  have  no  right 
to  own  any  buildings,  any  land,  any  investments  within  the  territory  of 
Mexico.  Should  any  church  own  land,  buildings  or  investments,  they 
must  be  confiscated  at  once  to  the  State,  which  is  justified  in  either  using 
them  itself  for  its  own  purposes,  selling  them,  or  giving  them  to  private 
citizens.  The  Church  can  not  inherit  or  transfer  anything  it  possesses; 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


5 


in  other  words,  nothing  can  be  set  aside  for  the  endowment  of  religious 
institutions ; nor  can  a church  have  any  real  possessions  whatever.  The 
State,  he  claims,  has  a right  to  determine  how  many  churches  the  people 
need,  no  matter  how  many  they  built.  The  State  has  a right  to  take 
church  property  and  do  as  it  pleases  with  it.  The  clergy,  he  contends, 
have  no  right  to  hold  property,  and  if  they  do  hold  it  as  private  citizens 
only,  the  State  should  investigate  to  see  if,  perhaps,  they  intend  to  make 
a religious  or  charitable  use  of  it ; in  which  case  the  State  should  take  it. 
Of  course,  if  the  clergy  intend  using  it  for  gambling  purposes,  or  for 
houses  of  ill-fame,  or  mescal  shops,  the  State  could  not  take  it.  These 
purposes  are  presumably  lawful,  and  proper  for  the  preservation  of 
society  and  for  the  good  of  the  Republic.  No  clergyman  should,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Cabrera,  speak  about  politics  or  take  any  interest  whatever 
in  the  political  affairs  of  his  country,  or  use  his  influence  directly  or  indi- 
rectly to  that  end.  There  should  be  no  trust  to  hold  property  belonging 
to  a church,  and  if  such  a trust  is  made,  the  legal  heirs  ought  to  come  in 
and  take  the  property  on  the  death  of  those  who  compose  the  trust.  That 
this  has  been  done  Mr.  Cabrera  himself  asserts,  for  he  says  that  “ the 
Church  often  lost  her  property  by  its  being  demanded  by  the  legal  heirs 
of  the  apparent  owner.”  These  are  just  a few  of  the  admissions  that  Mr. 
Cabrera  makes.  I do  not  think  that  the  Mexican  bishops  and  clergy  could 
go  any  farther  than  Mr.  Cabrera  has  gone. 

As  to  the  charge  that  the  Constitutionalists  persecuted  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic clergy,  Mr.  Cabrera  will  perhaps  remember  that  the  list  of  murders, 
robberies,  tortures,  etc.,  made  in  “ The  Book  of  Red  and  Yellow  ” were 
quite  numerous  and  were  mostly  given  under  oath. 

It  may  also  be  a matter  of  interest  to  the  gentleman  to  know  that  the 
only  activity  the  Mexican  bishops  exiled  in  the  United  States  showed  was 
when  some  indignant  Americans  proposed  intervention.  Then,  to  a man, 
the  Mexican  clergy  used  their  influence  on  their  Catholic  brethren  in  the 
United  States  to  oppose  such  intervention.  How  do  I know  this  ? Because, 
for  the  good  of  Mexico,  as  I thought,  I myself  was  in  favor  of  intervention, 
and  it  was  through  the  influence  of  the  Mexican  bishops  that  I changed  my 
mind  and  actively  interested  myself  before  the  American  Government  in 
opposition  to  it ; as  is  shown  clearly  by  my  correspondence  with  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Secretary  of  State.  If  Mr.  Cabrera  thinks  that  by  these 
false  charges  against  the  Mexican  clergy  he  is  going  to  raise  up  enemies 
for  them  among  their  people,  he  will  have  to  reckon  with  the  translation 
and  circulation  in  Spanish  of  these  letters  among  the  citizens  of  the  Mexi- 
can Republic.  He  is  not  dealing  now  with  a quiet,  long-suffering  Mexican 
Hierarchy.  He  is  dealing  with  sixteen  million  Catholic  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  a good  many  others  who  are  not  Catholics,  but  who 


6 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


know  their  rights,  who  know  their  duties,  and  who  have  long  ago  gotten 
past  the  time  when  they  are  going  to  stand  for  any  nonsense. 

Cabrera. — / have  written  the  following  article  with  the  purpose  of 
making  the  American  people  know  the  real  position  of  the  Mexican  clergy. 

Anszver. — But  you  have  entirely  omitted  saying  anything  except  on 
your  own  unqualified  statement.  Are  you  a lawyer,  or  do  you  only  make 
a pretense  at  practicing  law?  If  you  are  a lawyer,  do  you  always  go  to 
court  with  a speech  but  no  evidence  ? 

Cabrera. — The  religious  question  in  Mexico  has  been  misunderstood 
in  the  United  States  because  the  position  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  Mexico 
is  far  different  from  that  of  the  position  of  the  same  Church  in  the  United 
States.  In  Mexico  nmety-nine  per  cent  of  the  population  belong  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  creed;  therefore,  the  influence  of  the  Catholic  clergy  in 
our  religious  matters  has  no  opposition  at  all. 

Answer. — Well,  we  dense  Yankees,  perhaps,  have  a mistaken  idea  as 
to  what  opposition  is.  Churches  looted  and  destroyed,  colleges  razed  to 
the  ground,  schools  closed,  teachers  expelled,  religious  women  assaulted, 
Christian  Brothers  and  priests  murdered,  laws  made  limiting  religious 
rites,  prohibition  of  religious  ceremonies,  edicts  forbidding  preaching  and 
the  teaching  of  Sunday-school,  these  things  we  call  opposition  in  English. 
What  do  you  call  them  in  Spanish,  or  rather  in  Mexican,  or  better  still, 
in  Constitutionalist  Mexican?  And  what  do  you  intend  to  prove  by 
showing  that  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  population  of  Mexico  belongs 
to  the  Catholic  faith?  Does  that  mean  that  a ninety-nine  per  cent  of 
Catholic  population  justifies  anti-religious  laws?  If  so,  logically,  ninety- 
nine  per  cent  of  a Methodist  population  in  the  United  States  would  jus- 
tify the  American  people  in  cutting  the  throats  of  the  Methodist  ministers, 
smashing  their  educational  system  to  atoms,  expelling  their  deaconesses 
and  outraging  some  of  them.  What  kind  of  logic  is  this  for  a lawyer ; 
and  what  difference,  please,  would  it  make  to  the  United  States  if  all  her 
people  were  religious  or  belonged  to  one  denomination,  so  far  as  her  laws 
are  concerned?  The  principles  of  justice  are  the  same,  no  matter  what 
the  religious  conditions  are,  and  no  matter  how  strong  any  denomination 
may  be.  The  principles  of  democracy  are  the  same.  Must  it  be  admitted, 
then,  that  as  soon  as  any  religious  denomination  in  the  United  States 
is  in  a majority  it  should  be  suppressed ; or  is  toleration  not  possible  for 
the  religious  opinions  of  a majority?  Tell  us.  Citizen  Cabrera,  who  has 
governed  Mexico  for  the  last  eighty  years : the  majority  of  ninety-nine 
per  cent  Catholics,  or  the  minority  of  one  per  cent  atheists?  Isn’t  it  a 
fact  that  the  one  per  cent  has  governed  ? Isn’t  it  a fact  that  the  so-called 
Liberals  have  had  absolute  control,  and  that  their  oppressive  laws  have 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


7 


been  put  on  the  statute  books  so  as  to  keep  that  control?  Isn’t  it  a fact 
that  your  one  per  cent  has  been  grafting  on  the  nation,  enriching  itself, 
and  handing  down  its  legacies  of  graft  to  its  children.  Have  the  ninety- 
nine  per  cent  no  rights?  Then,  why  do  you  talk  for  the  nation?  Does 
the  ninety-nine  per  cent  form  part  of  that  nation,  or  does  the  nation  exist 
for  the  one  per  cent.  We  who  are  democrats  would  like  to  know  these 
things. 

Cabrera. — In  the  United  States  there  are  other  religious  denomina- 
tions zvhich  counteract  the  influence  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Answer. — And  yet  these  religious  denominations  have  not  seen  fit, 
though  they  are  in  the  majority,  to  deny  the  Catholic  Church  the  same 
rights  that  they  possess.  They  do  not  seem  to  believe  it  wise  to  destroy 
all  liberty  by  attempting  to  legislate  against  the  liberty  of  some  of  their 
neighbors. 

Cabrera. — The  Laws  of  Reform  aim  to  take  all  her  power  from  the 
Church  and  to  establish  her  absolute  independence  from  the  State. 

Answer. — “ Absolute  independence  ” is  good.  If  I meet  my  neighbor 
on  the  street,  knock  him  down,  batter  his  face  beyond  recognition,  break 
his  arm  and  tie  his  legs  so  that  he  can  not  get  away,  then  carry  him  to  jail 
and  lock  him  up  permanently,  I suppose  I am  then  establishing  his  absolute 
independence. 

Cabrera. — The  Revolution  of  Ayutla,  in  the  years  1856  to  i8^p, 
aimed  at  despoiling  the  Church  of  her  economical  power  and  her  social 
influence,  and  should,  therefore,  have  put  the  Church  in  a condition  which, 
apparently  unjust  and  disadvantageous,  was  really  the  only  possible  means 
to  make  the  Catholic  clergy  impotent. 

Answer. — So  that  was  the  object  of  the  revolution  : to  render  the  Cath- 
olic clergy  impotent,  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  religious  leaders  of 
ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  people  to  lead,  to  counteract  their  influence 
and  to  make  them  slaves  of  the  one  per  cent?  That  this  was  “ unjust  and 
disadvantageous  ” is  certainly  apparent ; the  idea  being  an  application  of 
the  old  saying  that  “ the  only  good  Indian  is  a dead  Indian,”  and  the  only 
way  to  have  religion  is  to  suppress  it. 

Cabrera. — Maximilian  himself  did  not  dare  to  destroy  the  work  done 
during  the  time  of  Juarez. 

Answer. — Was  that  the  reason  why  Juarez  shot  Maximilian?  But 
your  statement  is  perfectly  true.  Why  did  Maximilian  not  repeal  the 
Laws  of  Reform?  Because  French  influence  forced  him  to  make  a secret 
compact  with  Napoleon  III.  that  he  would  not  do  so.  It  was  foreign,  and 
not  Mexican,  influence  that  upheld  the  Laws  of  Reform.  Maximilian’s 


8 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


action  was  directly  contrary  to  the  agreement  he  made  with  Miramon 
when  the  crown  was  offered  him.  It  was  the  most  unpopular  thing  Maxi- 
milian did  ; and  it  helped  to  dethrone  him.  But  where,  O Citizen  Cabrera, 
is  now  your  argument  that  Maximilian  was  governed  by  the  Catholic 
clergy?  You  are  still  limping  terribly  on  the  side  of  your  logic. 

Cabrera. — At  the  present  time  there  are  in  the  Mexican  Constitution 
some  precepts  which  correspond  to  the  Laws  of  Reform,  and,  according 
to  the  same  Constitution,  the  laws  and  the  authorities  must  enforce  them. 

Answer. — But,  my  dear  Sir,  there  are  other  precepts  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  your  country  which  concern  “ life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness.” Must  not  “all  authorities  and  laws  ” enforce  these  also?  Then, 
why  is  your  Don  Venustiano  governing  by  edicts?  Why  have  you  set 
aside  all  the  other  provisions  of  the  Constitution  except  the  anti-religious 
ones  ? Why  have  you  had  a dictatorship  for  over  fifty  years  ? Why  have 
you  had  no  honest  elections?  You  defend  the  anti-religious  acts  of  Gen- 
eral Diaz,  who  made  a football  of  the  Constitution,  and  you  are  a Cabinet 
officer  of  Carranza  who  has  made  a lost  golf  ball  of  it. 

Cabrera. — The  proposition  of  the  Constitutional  Government  regard- 
ing the  Catholic  Church  of  Mexico  is  only  to  strictly  enforce  the  Laws  of 
Reform,  which  up  to  now  have  been  violated. 

Answer. — And  yet  you  say  that  they  were  apparently  “unjust  and 
disadvantageous,”  while  Juarez  said  that  they  were  “ tyrannical.”  You 
say  you  want  peace  in  Mexico,  and  you  say  also  that  the  Catholics  have 
no  right  to  agitate  for  a repeal  of  tyrannical  laws,  or  to  ask  for  any  relief, 
while  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  people  are  Catholic.  If  these  laws  only 
must  be  enforced,  and  the  ninety-nine  per  cent  have  no  right  whatever  to 
express  their  desire  to  be  relieved  of  them,  please  tell  the  American  peo- 
ple, and  the  Mexican  people,  too,  in  what  the  government  you  desire 
differs  from  that  of  an  absolute  monarchy.  Do  you  want  a democracy, 
or  do  you  want  a perpetual  tyranny?  You  can  not  have  both  at  the  same 
time. 

Cabrera. — These  laws  must  remain. 

Ansvuer. — Surely ! The  one  per  cent  wants  them.  Then  it  is  tyranny 
you  want.  Americans  are  grateful  to  you  for  telling  them  frankly  what 
to  expect  of  you.  That  statement  we  will  proceed  also  to  lay  before  the 
Washington  authorities,  who  have  been  laboring  under  the  impression 
that  you  want  liberty  in  Mexico.  Once  more,  we  beg  to  assure  you,  that 
you  are  not  dealing  with  the  Mexican  clergy.  You  are  dealing  with  Amer- 
ican citizens,  who  believe  in  a republican  form  of  government  and  the 
elemental  principles  of  liberty. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


9 


Cabrera. — The  Church  should  he  without  temporal  power,  and  as  an 
organized  body  should  not  interfere  in  political  matters. 

Answer. — So  that  if  the  Catholics,  or  the  Presbyterians,  or  Metho- 
dists, or  any  other  religious  body  in  Mexico  that  now  exists,  or  might 
exist  in  the  future,  desires  to  change  the  laws  which  oppress  them,  they 
would  have  no  right  to  make  such  propositions.  Carry  this  out  logically. 
If  there  is  a tariff  law  in  Mexico  which  oppresses  and  renders  impossible 
of  operation  the  hemp  industry  of  Yucatan,  and  the  merchants  band 
themselves  together  to  agitate  for  such  changes  as  will  give  them  the  right 
to  exist,  new  Laws  of  Reform  will  have  to  be  passed  to  take  away  from 
these  merchants  all  their  citizenship  rights,  and  to  prevent  them  from 
expressing  an  opinion,  voting,  or  doing  anything  else  to  save  themselves. 
Is  that  the  idea  ? 

Cabrera. — We  Constitutionalists  are  Catholic;  Villistas  are  Catholic; 
Zapatistas  are  Catholic  as  well. 

Answer. — How  long  is  it  since  you  attended  Mass  ? 

Cabrera. — The  Constitutionalist  Party  could  not  intend  to  prevent 
Catholics,  who  are  practically  the  entire  Mexican  people,  either  from  pro- 
fessing their  religion,  or  from  taking  a part  in  political  matters. 

Answer. — Well,  they  made  a very  good  attempt  at  it,  anyhow.  Cath- 
olics may  profess  their  religion  in  Mexico,  of  course,  provided  they  do 
not  profess  it  openly.  They  can  think  that  they  are  Catholics,  but  it  is 
dangerous  to  say  that  they  are  Catholics.  If  they  say  that  they  are  Cath- 
olics, for  example,  they  could  not  hope  to  be  Presidents  or  Cabinet  offi- 
cers, or  Judges,  or  Senators,  or  Jefes  Politicos,  or  even  superintendents 
of  street  cleaning ; but  it  would  be  conceded  probably  that  they  could  hold 
the  minor  offices.  They  might  dig  ditches,  sweep  out  the  public  build- 
ings, or  herd  sheep.  There  is  no  actual  objection  to  Catholics  working 
with  their  hands,  provided  they  do  not  interfere  with  any  remunerative 
job  desired  by  the  one  per  cent  of  Liberals.  They  may  vote,  of  course, 
but  then  they  must  not  count  the  votes;  neither  must  they  make  political 
speeches,  nor  write  about  politics.  In  other  words,  they  may  be  “ hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water.”  They  are  permitted  to  exist  as  long  as 
they  pay  their  taxes  into  the  treasuries,  which  are  under  the  control  of 
the  gracious  Constitutionalists,  and  which  are  for  their  personal  use. 

Cabrera. — The  Mexican  clergy,  and  generally,  the  Church,  abstained 
for  a long  time  from  taking  any  part  in  our  politics. 

Answer. — One  of  the  most  necessary  things  for  a lawyer  in  drawing 
up  a brief  is  to  remember  in  the  second  paragraph  what  he  said  in  the 


10 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


first.  Evidently  Mr.  Cabrera  is  not  a good  lawyer,  because  this  statement 
is  in  direct  contradiction  to  about  every  other  statement  he  made  in  his 
excellent  “ reply.” 

Cabrera. — During  the  government  of  General  Diaz,  the  clergy  did  not 
intend  to  organize  themselves  for  political  battles.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  appeared  as  strictly  submitted  to  the  laws  of  the  country. 

Anszver. — Then  why  did  you  and  your  fellow  Constitutionalists  rebel 
against  the  government  of  General  Diaz?  It  seems  to  have  been  quite 
your  ideal.  You  do  not  obey  any  part  of  the  Constitution  except  that 
part  which  suppresses  the  clergy  ; neither  did  General  Diaz  for  a long  time. 
But  you  were  not  satisfied  with  that.  You  arranged  a little  revolution 
to  put  him  out  of  office.  You  did  it,  you  say,  because  you  wanted  him  to 
obey  the  Constitution;  but  now  you  are  objecting  to  the  clergy  because 
they  obeyed  it.  Would  you,  please.  Citizen,  tell  us  just  what  you  do  want? 
Frankly,  your  type  of  mind  is  beyond  ordinary  comprehension.  Why, 
then,  do  you  charge  that  the  Catholic  clergy  were  allied  with  Diaz,  when 
you  confess  that  they  simply  obeyed  the  laws  and  did  not  interfere  in 
politics  ? 

Cabrera. — When  General  Diaz  retired  from  power  and  Mr.  Francisco 
Leon  de  la  Barra  occupied  the  Presidency,  the  Catholic  clergy  thought  that 
the  time  zvas  come  zvhen  they  should  organize  themselves  for  the  political 
struggle.  Therefore,  a political  party  was  formed  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Catholic  clergy  and  chiefly  composed  of  landlords. 

Answer. — But  later  on  you  state  that  this  party  won  considerable  suc- 
cess at  the  polls ; in  fact,  had  thirty  per  cent  of  the  representatives  of 
Congress.  Are  the  landlords  in  such  a tremendous  majority  in  Mexico 
that  they  could  elect  so  many?  We  understood  in  the  United  States  that 
in  Mexico  there  were  a few  landlords  who  oppressed  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  people.  Then  we  understand  that  the  Constitution  gives 
only  one  vote  to  each  person.  Which  is  wrong  — our  understanding  of 
the  Constitution  and  of  the  proportion  of  landlords  to  the  people,  or  your 
statement  that  the  landlords  chiefly  composed  the  new  party  ? It  is  either 
one  or  the  other.  Which  horn  of  the  dilemma  is  the  more  comfortable 
for  you  to  sit  upon?  Again,  perhaps  you  will  remember  that  no  political 
parties  were  permitted  to  actively  exist  under  General  Diaz,  but  you  state 
that  when  the  Catholic  de  la  Barra  became  President,  political  parties  could 
exist.  Then  the  Catholic  President  was  trying  to  give  you  a democracy? 
Now,  then,  wasn’t  it  a democracy  you  wanted?  If  you  did  not  want  that, 
what  objection  had  you  to  General  Diaz?  If  you  did  want  it,  wherein 
lay  the  crime  of  de  la  Barra  ? 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


11 


Cabrera. — The  Catholic  clergy  began  to  make  the  propaganda  of  the 
Catholic  Party  first  in  a rather  discreet  way. 

Answer. — Thank  you. 

Cabrera. — But  afterwards  they  did  it  openly. 

Answer. — Which,  of  course,  is  reprehensible,  because  the  Liberals  did 
their  work  in  secret  lodges. 

Cabrera. — And  by  oppressing  the  masses. 

Answer. — How?  Did  they  forbid  the  masses  to  vote,  to  own  prop- 
erty, to  leave  what  they  had  to  the  cause  they  considered  most  worthy? 
Did  they  take  away  their  houses  from  them,  or  their  investments?  Did 
they  forbid  them  citizenship  rights?  Explain.  That  is  just  what  the  Con- 
stitutionalists did  to  the  Catholic  clergy.  Did  the  clergy  teach  them  that? 
How  did  they  do  it  ? They  were  not  in  power.  They  had  no  governmen- 
tal influence.  Oppression  of  the  masses  are  big  words  to  use,  but  they 
require  some  elucidation. 

Cabrera. — When  de  la  Barra  was  provisional  President,  the  Catholic 
Party  intended  to  rob  the  revolution  of  the  fruits  of  its  triumph  by 
appointing  the  same  de  la  Barra  as  a candidate  for  the  Presidency  of  the 
Republic. 

Answer. — Was  de  la  Barra  a citizen  of  Mexico  ? What  says  the  Mexi- 
can Constitution?  Did  he  have  a right  to  run  for  President?  Did  the 
people  have  a right  to  elect  him?  Who  was  to  be  the  final  judge,  the 
Constitutionalists  or  the  people?  Then,  wherein  lay  the  crime  against 
the  rights  of  the  people  of  any  party  nominating  any  citizen,  or  any  citi- 
zen running,  for  the  office  of  President?  Truly,  your  ideas  of  a Republic 
are  strangely  at  variance  with  those  recognized  by  other  nations.  But 
a more  important  matter  is  that  the  Catholic  Party  did  not  nominate  de  la 
Barra,  and  that  he  did  not  run  for  President.  There  were  only  two  candi- 
dates for  President  at  that  election  — Madero  and  Reyes.  Another  point : 
did  not  Madero  himself  praise  the  Catholic  Party  as  the  first  fruit  of  his 
revolution,  hailing  it  as  a sign  of  the  liberty  of  organization  which  his 
government  was  going  to  inaugurate  in  Mexico,  and  did  he  not  thus  praise 
the  party  even  in  the  Senate  chamber  ? 

Cabrera. — In  the  elections  of  igii,  the  candidacy  of  the  Constitu- 
tional-Progressive Party  won  against  the  candidacy  of  the  Catholic  Party, 
and  since  that  moment  it  ( the  Catholic  Party)  became  one  of  the  principal 
enemies  of  the  government  of  Mr.  Francisco  I.  Madero. 

Answer. — From  what  I have  heard  from  Mexican  Catholics,  they  were 
all  inclined  to  consider  Madero  as  one  willing  to  grant  them  more  justice 


12 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


than  any  previous  President  had  granted.  The  bishops  especially  seemed 
rather  favorably  disposed  toward  him ; but,  even  if  they  had  been  against 
him,  Mr.  Cabrera  can  give  the  reason.  Madero  himself  decided  that 
not  more  than  thirty  Catholic  deputies  would  be  permitted  to  sit  in  Con- 
gress. Mr.  Cabrera  was  the  gentleman  to  whom  was  assigned  the  task 
of  carrying  out  these  orders.  He  refused  to  accept  fifty  credentials  from 
elected  representatives  who  were  Catholics,  and  some  of  even  those  rep- 
resentatives who  were  not  Catholics  but  who  were  decent  men.  The  rea- 
sons given  for  rejection  were  varied : one  was  that  the  form  of  certificate 
was  not  legal ; but  in  order  to  find  this  out,  Mr.  Cabrera  must  have  used 
the  X-ray,  for  he  did  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  break  the  seals  on  the 
credentials.  When  he  was  taxed  with  this  wholesale  ignoring  of  the  will 
of  the  people,  he  stated,  in  full  assembly  of  the  Credentials  Committee, 
that  above  injustice  was  the  convenience  of  the  Constitutionalist-Pro- 
gressive Party.”  Let  me  see,  does  Mexico  exist  for  the  good  of  her 
people,  or  for  the  convenience  of  the  Constitutionalist-Progressive  Party  ? 

Cabrera. — The  Catholic  clergy,  both  directly  and  through  the  Cath- 
olic Party,  was  one  of  the  principal  factors  in  the  fall  of  Madero;  and 
though  their  candidate  for  the  Presidency  was  not  Huerta,  it  is  a matter 
of  fact  that  their  leader  — de  la  Barra  — was  in  the  Cabinet  which  decreed 
the  murder  of  Madero  and  Pino  Suarez. 

Answer. — The  murder  of  Madero  and  Pino  Suarez  was  decreed  by 
three  men  well  known  to  Mr.  Cabrera,  and  not  by  the  Huerta  Cabinet,  nor 
by  General  Huerta  himself.  But  even  if  the  Cabinet  had  decreed  it,  the 
fact  that  de  la  Barra  was  in  the  Cabinet  would  prove  only  de  la  Barra’s 
guilt.  He  was  not  the  candidate  of  the  Catholic  Party  for  President, 
nor  was  he  the  leader  of  the  party,  or  even  a member  of  the  party.  The 
Catholic  clergy  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  fall  of  Madero,  as  Mr.  Cabrera 
knows ; for  in  the  fall  of  Madero  the  Catholic  people  of  Mexico  lost  their 
last  chance  for  even  a semblance  of  justice.  Mark  well,  I do  not  say 
justice;  I say  a semblance  of  justice.  The  Catholics  of  Mexico  had  been 
oppressed  so  long  that  even  the  semblance  would  have  satisfied  them. 

Cabrera. — Afterwards  the  Catholic  Party  secured  important  positions 
for  its  principal  leaders  in  the  government  of  Huerta,  and  afterward 
supported  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Frederic  Gamboa  for  President  of  the 
Republic. 

Answer. — The  party  had  named  itself  “ Catholic  ” without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Church.  The  Church  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  rebellion 
against  Madero,  as  is  proved  by  the  collective  pastoral  of  the  bishops 
issued  in  January,  1913,  at  Zamora,  which  condemned  the  rebellion  in  the 
most  public  manner  and  to  all  the  faithful.  For  the  purpose  of  winning 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


13 


over  the  Catholic  Party,  Huerta  appointed  a Catholic  to  his  Cabinet.  Con- 
gress would  not  permit  him  to  accept.  The  Catholic  Party,  too,  was  dis- 
satisfied, because  it  recognized  the  fact  that  the  appointment  was  only  a 
bid  for  a support  which  it  could  not  consistently  give  to  General  Huerta. 

Cabrera. — This  work  was  done,  not  through  the  individual  efforts 
which  a man  has  a right  to  give  to  any  political  party,  hut  by  using  the 
religious  influence  of  the  clergy  upon  the  people  — the  pulpit  and  the  con- 
fessional. 

Answer. — If  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  people  of  Mexico  were  Cath- 
olic, as  you  say,  and  the  Catholic  clergy  really  used  their  influence  through 
“ the  pulpit  and  the  confessional  upon  them,  where  would  the  Constitu- 
tionalists be  to-day?  The  fact  that  there  are  Constitutionalists  at  all  is 
the  most  striking  proof  that  the  clergy  did  not  interfere  in  politics  in  any 
such  way. 

Cabrera. — During  the  struggle  against  Huerta,  the  adverse  and  unjust 
opinion  found  in  all  cities  occupied  by  the  Constitutionalists  was  a surprise 
to  them.  It  seemed  to  be  a paradox. 

Answer. — All  the  cities,  did  you  say?  But  you  tried  to  impress  upon 
Mr.  Lind,  the  representative  of  President  Wilson,  that  the  people  were 
all  for  you.  Now  it  appears  that  they  were  all  against  you.  But  you  want 
a democracy.  Then  what  were  you  fighting  for,  and  by  what  right  do 
you  fight  now  ? Who  rules,  anyhow,  or  at  least  who  is  supposed  to  rule  ? 
You  decide  what  you  think  the  people  ought  to  have,  then  you  tie  the 
thing  up  into  a ball  and  force  it  down  their  throats  at  the  point  of  a bay- 
onet. It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Mexicans  are  being  choked. 

Cabrera. — The  strong  opposition  found  by  the  Constitutionalists  in 
some  cities  under  the  form  of  Social  Armed  Defense  was  not  a sign  of 
sympathy  toward  Huerta,  but  it  was  occasioned  by  a kind  of  horror  toward 
the  revolutionary  soldiers,  whom  the  Catholic  clergy  made  appear  as  ban- 
dits who  intended  to  take  possession  of  towns  and  villages  in  order  to  rob, 
to  loot,  violate  women,  and  murder. 

Answer. — And  in  order  to  prove  that  this  was  an  unjust  judgment 
on  the  Constitutionalists  by  the  people,  when  you  did  take  the  towns  and 
villages,  you  looted,  you  robbed,  you  violated  the  women  and  you  com- 
mitted murder.  It  was  a fine  way  to  show  the  people  that  you  were  not 
bandits,  that  you  were  simply  working  for  their  own  good,  and  to  pre- 
serve their  homes  and  their  property  and  their  most  sacred  rights.  But 
have  you  even  told  the  truth  about  this  “ Social  Defense  ”?  The  “ Social 
Defense  ” of  the  diflferent  places  like  Moralia,  La  Piedad,  etc.,  was  really 
against  bandits.  When  the  actual  troops  of  the  Constitutionalists  came 


14 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


to  the  city  they  were  welcomed,  because  the  people  believed  their  promise 
that  they  would  restore  law  and  order.  After  they  had  begun  their  “ work 
of  restoration  of  law  and  order,”  the  people  prayed  God  to  send  the  ban- 
dits along.  What  about  the  1,300  carloads  of  loot  taken  out  of  Mexico 
City  to  Vera  Cruz  by  Carranza? 

Cabrera. — The  work  of  the  clergy  to  form  an  adverse  opinion  to  the 
Constitutionalists  explains  — even  if  it  may  not  justify  — many  of  the 
aggressions  committed  by  the  soldiers  against  the  members  of  it. 

Answer. — Again  I owe  you  thanks,  Sir,  for  the  little  concession  that 
the  murders  and  other  aggressions  against  the  clergy  were  unjustified ; 
also  that  they  were  committed.  Mr.  Tumulty  please  note. 

Cabrera. — But  it  is  very  natural  that,  after  a political  struggle,  the 
military  element  felt  disappointed,  knowing  the  effects  of  the  clerical 
propaganda  against  the  revolution,  and  that  instead  of  remaining  within 
stated  limits  have,  on  some  occasions,  exceeded  them  and  tried  to  interfere 
in  some  questions  of  a merely  religious  character. 

Answer. — For  example,  at  the  Constitutionalist  Convention  at  Aguas- 
calientes.  Does  that  explain  the  address  of  that  strong  upholder  of 
Carranza  who  presided  — General  Antonio  I.  Villareal,  graduate  of  Ameri- 
can penitentiaries,  pupil  of  the  Ferrer  School  of  Anarchy  in  Barcelona? 

Cabrera. — The  burning  of  the  confessional  boxes  especially  was  a 
manifestation  of  the  disappointment  of  the  revolutionary  forces,  for  the 
abuse  of  the  Sacrament  of  Confession  done  by  the  Catholic  clergy  when 
they  used  it  as  a political  weapon. 

Answer. — It  was  too  bad  that  the  clergy  did  such  a thing.  They  must 
have  interfered  seriously  with  the  liberty  of  the  citizens  Villareal,  Garza, 
Obregon,  Villa,  Cabrera  and  Carranza.  I can  imagine  the  eflfect  upon 
these  gentlemen  of  the  instruction  they  received  at  their  weekly  confes- 
sions. It  must  have  irritated  them  terribly ; and,  in  the  case  of  some  of 
them,  perhaps,  it  even  made  them  hesitate  about  going  to  confession  quite 
as  often  as  usual ; or,  perhaps,  they  changed  their  confessors.  That  may 
explain  why  nineteen  priests  were  taken  from  Mexico  City  to  Vera  Cruz, 
headed  by  Paredes,  who,  I suppose,  now  occupies  the  position  of  official 
confessor  to  the  Constitutionalist  Government.  But  who  hears  the  con- 
fession of  Paredes? 

Cabrera. — It  is  necessary  to  state  again  and  again  that  the  Constitu- 
tionalist Government  had  never  intended  to  interfere  in  religious  matters, 
or  to  prevent  the  Mexican  people  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  religious  free- 
dom. The  Constitutionalist  Government  does  not  intend  to  establish  any 
laws  which  may  affect  religion  or  to  restrain  in  any  way  religious  practices. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


15 


Answer. — That’s  fine ; but  why  should  they  intend  to  establish  any 
new  laws  when  they  have  already  all  that  are  required,  and  which  they 
say  they  have  no  intention  of  repealing,  but  have  a decided  intention  of 
enforcing?  They  “ do  not  intend  to  interfere  in  religious  matters  ” at  all, 
or  prevent  the  Mexican  people  from  enjoying  religious  freedom?  Then, 
in  that  case,  why  not  start  by  giving  the  Mexican  people  religious  free- 
dom ? Why  not  have  a separation  of  Church  and  State  such  as  the  United 
States  has?  Why  not  remove  the  restrictions  which  are  the  cause  of  the 
difficulties?  Why  not  let  the  people  build  their  churches  if  they  need 
them,  take  care  of  them,  take  care  of  their  clergy,  offer  some  help  to  the 
work  of  education  and  assist  the  progress  of  civilization  in  Mexico?  Why 
not  get  them  working  for  the  country?  If  the  energies  of  the  ninety-nine 
per  cent  of  Catholics  are  to  be  eternally  spent  in  securing  the  most  ele- 
mental rights  from  the  one  per  cent  who  govern  with  a stiletto,  how  can 
you  ask  the  ninety-nine  per  cent  to  contribute  anything  to  the  sane  and 
safe  progress  of  Constitutional  Government?  But  I forgot,  you  don’t  ask 
that.  You  only  want  them  to  quietly  let  you  do  as  you  please.  But,  since 
you  wrote,  Mr.  Carranza  has  been  recognized,  and  as  a mark  of  his  respect 
for  your  promises  he  has  closed  and  seized  more  churches. 

Cabrera. — The  Catholic  clergy,  before  i8j6,  was  the  strongest  eco- 
nomic power  in  the  country. 

Answer. — Possibly.  But  the  historians  of  Mexico  all  say  that  the 
lands  rented  from  the  Church  were  the  lands  sought  by  the  people,  because 
of  the  favorable  conditions  under  which  they  were  held ; because  the 
tenants  were  taken  care  of ; because  the  children  were  sent  to  school ; 
because  the  poor  were  fed ; and  because  usury  was  not  permitted.  It 
was  bad  business  for  the  other  landlords,  who  wanted  a higher  rate  per 
cent  for  money,  like  some  of  them  who  demanded  from  ten  and  twelve 
per  cent  a week.  These  wanted  to  rent  their  lands  at  their  own  extor- 
tionate prices.  The  Church  was  a bad  competitor,  because  she  stood  for 
justice.  It  is  the  same  story  as  that  of  the  lands  in  the  Philippine  Islands 
that  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Friars.  It  was  there  looked  upon  as  a 
scandal  that  the  Friars  held  land,  but  chiefly  because  the  Chinese-Mestizo 
was  the  other  landlord.  This  wide-awake  gentleman  has  his  way  now, 
but  it  is  the  people  who  pay  — they  always  do.  And,  by  the  way,  hark- 
ing back  to  the  statement  that  the  Constitutionalists  have  not  interfered  in 
religious  matters ; was  it  interfering  in  religious  matters  to  throw  out 
the  legitimately  appointed  Vicar-General  of  Mexico  City  and  nominate 
Father  Paredes,  as  Carranza  did?  And  is  it  an  interference  in  religious 
matters  to  close  churches,  because  in  the  opinion  of  the  Constitutionalists 
they  are  not  needed  ? or  to  say  when  the  bells  shall  be  rung  ? or  what  par- 
ticular priest  shall  say  Mass  ? or  to  state  that  none  may  hear  confessions  ? 


16 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


or  to  forbid  the  alms  collection  on  Sunday?  or  to  interfere  with  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Sacraments  to  the  dying  so  that,  even  when  the  dying 
person  was  allowed  to  go  to  confession,  a Constitutionalist  representa- 
tive must  be  present  to  hear  it?  If  there  is  to  be  any  new  legislation  in 
this  regard,  why  not  get  up  a form  of  absolution  to  be  used  exclusively 
by  Constitutionalist  representatives  at  deathbeds?  The  State,  having  all 
power,  ought  to  be  able  to  give  absolution. 

Cabrera. — The  clergy  vigorously  opposed  this  arrangement,  because 
that  thus  their  money  power  would  he  reduced  considerably.  Then  the 
war  called  ''  de  Reforma  ” or  ''  of  three  years  ” came.- 

Answer. — Does  it  occur  to  Mr.  Cabrera  that  the  clergy  might  have 
opposed  these  laws  because  they  were  aimed  at  the  very  basic  principles 
of  liberty  and  justice?  However,  the  three  years’  war  was  not  brought 
on,  or  carried  on,  by  the  clergy.  It  was  a straight  fight  between  the  Con- 
servative and  Liberal  parties  in  Mexico.  Mr.  Cabrera  is  constantly 
confusing  the  issue  by  referring  to  the  clergy  instead  of  the  Conservative 
Party,  when  it  suits  him  to  do  so.  As  a matter  of  fact,  many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Conservative  Party  were  looking  for  pelf  just  as  much  as 
were  most  members  of  the  Liberal  Party ; and  in  more  than  one  case  the 
clergy  were  ground  between  the  two  stones  of  the  mill. 

Cabrera. — The  essence  of  the  Laws  of  Reform  regarding  the  Catholic 
Church  consisted  of  making  it  impossible  for  the  clergy  to  hold  real  estate. 
Such  a measure  may  appear  extreme,  but  was  absolutely  necessary  . . . 
the  measure  continues  to  be  necessary. 

Answer. — The  Church  was  despoiled  in  1859.  Now,  Mr.  Cabrera  says 
the  spoliation  must  continue.  But  who  must  continue  being  despoiled? 
The  people  built  the  churches  in  the  beginning.  Every  penny  that  went 
into  them  came  from  Mexicans,  directly  or  indirectly.  When  the  estates 
of  the  Church  were  taken  away,  only  the  Government  benefited,  and  its 
individual  friends  to  whom  the  Government  sold  the  property  for  a song. 
When  the  property  was  sold,  it  was  at  such  ridiculous  prices  that  it  was 
plain  the  Government  was  simply  using  the  sale  as  a pretext  to  enrich 
individuals  who  had  helped  in  the  stealing.  Some  of  these  men  became 
immensely  wealthy.  Now,  no  one  charges  that  the  Church  sent  any  of 
the  money  that  came  from  its  lands  out  of  Mexico.  Every  one  knows 
that  it  was  all  used  for  the  colleges,  schools,  charitable  and  religious  insti- 
tutions of  the  country ; that  the  revenue  was  expended  for  the  common 
good.  When  the  Church  lost  her  lands  and  property,  and  they  were  turned 
over  to  the  Government’s  supporters,  what  became  of  the  income?  Ask 
the  dive-keepers  of  Paris.  One  thing  is  certain,  it  is  not  democracy  to 
take  property  that  was  used  for  the  common  good  and  hand  it  over  for 
the  enrichment  of  millionaires. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


17 


Cabrera. — In  all  countries  it  is  now  admitted  that  the  Church  must 
have  no  temporal  power. 

Answer. — Mr.  Cabrera’s  use  of  the  words  “ temporal  power  ” is  a 
fine  example  of  his  dishonesty.  He  knows  that,  by  the  words  “ temporal 
power,”  most  people  mean  the  possession  by  the  Holy  See  of  the  old 
Papal  States.  This  gentleman  uses  it  to  mean  that  no  Church  or  religious 
institution  should  be  allowed  to  acquire  or  hold  the  land,  buildings  or 
investments  necessary  for  carrying  on  its  mission.  Does  England,  Bel- 
gium, Holland,  Germany,  Norway,  Sweden,  Spain,  Austria,  the  United 
States,  Italy,  or  even  Russia,  forbid  Churches  to  have  such  possessions? 
Does  even  Turkey  or  China?  They  do  not.  Is  it  up  to  these  countries 
to  learn  of  the  slaughtering,  raping,  stealing  Constitutionalists  of  Mexico 
how  to  treat  the  institutions  that  stand  for  religion,  and  that^are  recog- 
nized as  necessary  to  the  very  existence  of  nations  ? 

Cabrera. — The  essence  of  the  Laws  of  Reform  regarding  the  Cath- 
olic Church  consists  in  making  it  impossible  for  the  clergy  to  hold  real 
estate. 

Answer. — But  why?  The  experience  of  the  world  shows  that  the 
Church  can  accomplish  her  mission  under  a union  with  the  State,  or  free 
from  such  a union.  If  she  is  united  to  the  State,  then  the  State  takes 
care  of  the  temporalities,  leaving  to  the  Church  her  spiritual  work.  That 
situation  is  easily  understood.  If  the  Church  is  not  united  to  the  State, 
she  is  free,  in  every  civilized  nation  except  France,  to  have  and  to  hold 
the  property  needed  for  her  work.  Mexico,  emulating  the  worst  of 
France’s  folly,  wants  no  union  of  Church  and  State,  but  an  enslavement 
of  the  Church  by  the  State.  Her  Constitutionalists  now  desire  to  go 
farther.  They  want  a dead  Church  in  a live  State.  Why?  The  answer 
is  easy.  There  is  a class  in  Mexico  that  believes  the  country  owes  them 
a living.  They  are  the  lazy  political  class,  fomenters  of  revolutions  when 
out  of  power,  grafters  when  in  power.  To  these,  in  power  or  out,  the  prin- 
ciples of  Christian  morality  are  unalterably  opposed.  So  much  the  worse, 
then,  for  the  principles  of  Christian  morality.  There  can  be  no  truce. 
The  Church  may  be  discreetly  silent  on  some  things  for  the  sake  of  the 
poor  people ; but  she  can  not  suppress  the  Ten  Commandments.  Every 
sermon  against  theft  is  an  offense.  Every  act  of  deference  to  legitimate 
authority  is  a blow  at  the  supposed  right  of  revolution.  Every  act  of 
popular  piety  is  bitter  though  silent  reproach.  The  grafter’s  son  at  his 
First  Communion,  his  little  girl  coming  home  with  her  “ holy  pictures  ” 
from  school,  the  very  innocence  of  these,  his  children,  fills  him  with  rage 
against  an  institution  which  he  knows,  deep  in  his  heart,  is  a constant 
invitation  to  honesty,  and,  therefore,  a constant  menace  to  himself.  This 
is  the  why  and  the  wherefore  of  the  Laws  of  Reform.  This  is  the  reason 


81 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


that  Mr.  Cabrera  has  for  saying  that  they  must  be  maintained.  He  hasn’t 
yet  secured  all  he  wants.  But  when  he  desires  to  protect  and  care  for  his 
own  family,  he  sends  them  to  a religious  institution  — but  away  from  the 
Mexico  his  friends  have  made. 

Cabrera. — These  difficulties  made  the  Church  hnd  another  way  of 
holding  her  property  without  trespassing,  apparently,  the  Laws  of  Reform. 

. . . All  confiscations  against  the  Church  are  lawful. 

Ansiver. — Of  course.  It  is  well  understood.  If  the  Church  finds  a 
way  to  live  within  the  law  intended  to  kill  her,  the  course  of  the  Constitu- 
tionalists is  plain  : the  laws  must  be  changed  so  as  to  make  that  life  impos- 
sible. A law-abiding  clergy  is  something  that  can  not  be  tolerated  for 
an  instant.  If  the  law  is  so  that  they  can  exist  without  disobeying  it,  what 
excuse  is  there  to  oppress  and  kill  the  clergy?  It  is  all  clear.  Que 
voulez  vousf 

Cabrera. — The  fixing  of  the  number  of  temples  required  for  religious 
service  ought  to  he  made  by  the  Church;  but  since  the  Catholic  clergy 
in  Mexico  exerts  an  absolute  government  in  religious  matters  . . . 

there  is  no  basis  to  determine  the  number  of  temples  needed  in  each  city 
and  town.  The  State  is  therefore  the  only  capable  power  to  agree  with 
the  Church  as  to  the  number  of  temples. 

Answer. — In  one  breath  Mr.  Cabrera  demands  separation  of  Church 
and  State  and  in  the  next  asserts  that  the  State  should  even  dictate  the 
number  of  temples  the  people  may  build  and  occupy.  That  is  why  the 
Constitutionalists  closed  all  the  churches  in  Toluca,  and  all  but  one  in 
many  of  the  most  populous  towns  and  cities,  even  going  so  far  as  to  allow 
but  one  service  on  one  day  of  the  week,  forbidding  all  other  religious 
ministrations,  and  allowing  but  one  priest  to  officiate,  who  usually  was 
the  oldest  and  most  feeble,  so  that  there  might  be  a possible  chance  that 
the  one  selected  would  be  physically  unable  to  act.  Comment  is  unnec- 
essary. 

Cabrera. — Up  to  this  time  the  Government  has  not  used  such  a right 
(the  ''right’’  to  take  over  the  churches).  Some  time  after  the  publication 
of  the  Lazvs  of  Reform  — especially  after  i8§y  — the  Government  of 
Juarez  took  some  of  the  many  temples  existing  in  some  cities  to  use  them 
for  public  needs. 

Answer. — Which  of  these  statements,  diametrically  in  opposition,  does 
Mr.  Cabrera  intend  the  public  shall  believe?  Why  did  the  State  take  these 
buildings?  Mr.  Cabrera  says  that  it  was  because  the  Church  had  too  many 
for  the  use  of  the  people.  But  he  also  said  that  ninety-nine  per  cent  of 
the  people  are  Catholic.  Then,  surely,  there  were  not  too  many  temples 
for  them. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


19 


Cabrera. — Vera  Cruz  is  a town  whose  average  population  is  50,000, 
and  yet  three  churches  are  enough  for  its  religious  needs. 

Answer. — We  Americans  are  not  supposed  to  be  a strikingly  pious 
people,  yet  the  little  country  town  of  4,000  inhabitants  in  which  I happened 
to  be  the  Catholic  pastor  for  thirteen  years,  had  eight  churches.  Vera 
Cruz  evidently  is  not  as  good  as  its  name,  and  strikingly  proves  that  Mr. 
Carranza  selected  his  seat  of  government  wisely.  Is  the  new  rule  to  be 
one  temple  for  each  17,000  people?  Are  all  the  others  to  be  confiscated 
and  turned  over  to  the  “ faithful  ” Carranzistas  for  purchase  at  a nomi- 
nal price?  There  will  be  rejoicing,  of  a certainty.  But  the  dives  of  Paris 
are  closed  since  the  war,  and  France,  the  mother  of  Mexican  irreligion, 
is  changing.  By  the  way,  Mr.  Cabrera  says  that  only  real  estate  and 
investments  are  subject  to  confiscation.  Perhaps  science  and  learning 
may  then  rejoice  in  the  return  of  the  confiscated  archeological  library  and 
museum  of  Archbishop  Plancarte.  (And  again,  by  the  way,  Mr.  Cabrera 
ought  to  know  where  that  library  is.)  But  that  is  too  much  to  expect. 
Even  if  the  people  build  the  churches  they  think  they  need,  and  sustain 
them  out  of  their  devotion  and  poverty  because  they  want  them,  Mr. 
Cabrera  warns  them  that  the  State  may  not  agree  with  them,  but  may  pro- 
ceed to  confiscate  their  property  for  the  benefit  of  its  faithful  grafters.  But 
it  was  a mighty  small  thing  in  a Minister  of  Finance  to  steal  a poor  bishop’s 
books. 

Cabrera. — In  18/4  the  beneficent  orders  so-called  ‘'Sisters  of  Char- 
ity were  suppressed  and  the  expulsion  of  all  other  orders,  especially  that 
of  the  lesuits,  was  finished.  The  suppression  of  religious  orders  in  Mex- 
ico was  a measure  taken  to  defend  human  liberty. 

Answer. — And  then  education  for  the  Indians  and  peons  died.  It’s 
easier  to  handle  them,  you  see,  when  the  “ faithful  ” need  a revolution, 
if  they  are  ignorant ; and  in  the  horror  and  misery  of  war,  it  might 
make  the  poor  dying  soldier  think  of  God,  if  there  was  a Sister  of  Char- 
ity by  to  soothe  his  poor  wounded  body,  when  the  soul  is  passing  out  of 
it.  But  there  are  Sisters  in  Spain,  so  Mr.  Cabrera  sends  his  family  to 
them  for  the  safety  he  can  not  find  in  Mexico. 

Cabrera. — It  is  absolutely  false  that  some  nuns  have  been  made  the 
victims  of  outrages  of  Constitutionalist  soldiers. 

Answer. — Sworn  statements  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Is  this 
Mr.  Cabrera’s  reasoning?  The  Laws  of  Reform  suppressed  all  religious 
orders.  Nuns  are  members  of  religious  orders.  Therefore,  there  were 
no  nuns,  and,  therefore,  nuns  were  not  victims  of  outrages.  Those  who 
were  victims  (and  there  were  thousands  and  thousands  of  women  out- 


20 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


raged)  were  just  women.  The  Constitutionalist  soldiers  were  patriots. 
Patriots  have  rights.  Women  have  none.  There  is  no  God,  anyhow. 
What’s  the  use? 

Cabrera. — The  said  laws  (of  reform)  answer  a peculiar  condition  of 
Latin  America. 

Answer. — Which  are  not  found  necessary  in  prosperous  Costa  Rica, 
Brazil,  Argentina  and  Chile,  but  are  found  “ necessary  ” in  the  more  degen- 
erate graft-ridden  republics  of  Latin  America.  But  as  Mexico,  under  her 
multitude  of  revolutions,  has  become  the  worst  of  all,  when  she  should 
be  the  best,  given  the  good  people  she  has  and  her  natural  riches,  she  has 
sunk  the  lowest  in  her  legislation  and  in  her  leaders. 

Cabrera. — The  Constitutionalist  Government  intends  in  the  meantime 
to  uphold  the  separation  of  Church  and  State;  and,  therefore,  it  must 
not  be  wondered  at  if  it  takes  all  necessary  steps  to  despoil  the  Catholic 
clergy  of  the  temporal  pozver  they  want  to  reacquire,  or  if  it  declares  that 
no  religious  institution  shall  organize  any  political  body,  or  if  it  proceeds 
to  the  confiscation  of  such  estates  as  those  which  illegally  exist  in  the 
hands  of  the  Church,  or  which,  even  held  by  private  persons,  may  be 
proved  to  be  giving  their  income  to  the  Church. 

Anszver. — A careful  perusal  and  study  of  the  above  is  commended  to 
all  American  citizens  without  regard  to  their  religious  views.  Remem- 
bering that  by  “ temporal  power  ” Mr.  Cabrera  means  the  right  to  hold 
property  and  investment  securities,  here  is  how  the  Constitutionalist  plan 
for  Mexican  “ liberty  ” works  out : 

1st.  There  are  Protestant  schools  and  missions  in  Mexico.  Under 
the  Constitutionalist  plan  these  would  be  treated  like  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  growth  would  be  forever  impossible ; for  not  only  could  the  missions 
own  nothing  themselves  in  the  way  of  temples  (since  the  State  takes  all 
such  buildings  and  only  permits  the  real  owners  to  occupy  those  the  said 
State  thinks  they  need),  but  the  denominations  could  hold  no  building  for 
their  school-work,  no  club  for  their  children,  no  library  or  Sunday-school 
buildings,  not  even  land  for  playgrounds. 

2d.  Since  the  aim  of  all  missionary  work  is  to  make  each  mission  not 
only  self-supporting,  but  also  a new  source  of  missionary  energy  later  on, 
the  Protestant  missions  in  Mexico  would  always  be  operated  with  the  real 
aim  eliminated ; for  the  missions  could  receive  no  bequest,  no  gift  of  land 
or  of  securities  for  their  work.  They  could  have  no  houses  for  the  man- 
agement of  their  own  missionary  enterprises.  Their  power  of  expansion 
would  be  absolutely  nil,  and  their  work  would  forever  remain  under  the 
support  and  direction  of  foreign  founders.  An  American  could  help  in 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


21 


life  or  in  death,  by  gift  or  bequest,  provided  the  gift  or  bequest  was  not 
kept  in  Mexico  in  the  shape  of  real  estate  or  securities.  If  it  was  sent 
there  it  could  be  confiscated  at  once. 

3d.  If  the  anti-religious  laws  are  not  to  be  enforced  against  Protes- 
tants, but  are  solely  directed  against  Catholics,  what  sort  of  “ liberty  ” is 
that  which  proscribes  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  population  ? 

4th.  The  basic  command  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  to  His  Church 
was  to  teach  all  nations.’^  Mexico,  by  depriving  the  Church  of  the  right 
to  hold  the  means  of  support  for  her  missions,  would  change  this  into 
teach  no  nation.^^ 

5th.  Not  only  does  the  Constitutionalist  plan  propose  to  make  it  impos- 
sible for  the  Church  — or  any  Protestant  denomination  — to  hold  the 
means  to  carry  on  its  missionary  activities  in  pagan  lands,  but  it  likewise 
proposes  to  make  it  impossible  for  it  to  do  anything  for  the  eighty-five 
per  cent  of  Indians  at  home.  No  Mexican  dares  give  any  real  property 
or  securities,  or  money  for  investment,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  schools 
or  charitable  institutions  among  these  poor  people.  Consequently,  the 
missions  for  the  Indians,  who  can  not  support  the  work  themselves,  must 
remain  abandoned,  as  they  are  for  that  same  reason  to-day.  The  fifty 
years  of  the  operation  of  the  Laws  of  Reform  have  left  the  stamp  of 
ignorance  and  lawlessness  on  the  poor,  neglected  Indians. 

6th.  No  clergyman  of  the  Catholic  Church,  or  of  any  Protestant 
denomination,  could  feel  safe  even  in  keeping  his  private  means  in  the 
shape  of  investments  for  his  old  age  in  Mexico,  or  even  the  patrimony  of 
his  family;  since  a rigid  investigation  could  be  made  by  anti-religious 
officials,  with  the  same  kind  of  judges  to  pass  upon  the  findings,  to  the 
end  that  the  holding  might  be  found  to  “ illegally  exist  in  the  hands  of  the 
Church,  or  even  held,  by  private  persons”  That  this  is  no  impossible 
idea  of  my  own,  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  in  one  case  known  to  me,  the 
last  will  and  testament  of  a bishop  was  taken  so  as  to  discover  what  he 
privately  possessed ; and  his  entire  life’s  savings  and  private  patrimony 
— 19,000  pesos  — were  confiscated  as  belonging  in  reality  to  the  Church, 
therefore,  to  the  Constitutionalists.  This  is  only  one  case  that  came  under 
my  personal  knowledge;  but,  as  a matter  of  fact,  there  are  also  many 
others.  What  thus  becomes  of  the  rights  of  free  citizens? 

7th.  Any  number  of  men,  in*  order  to  bring  odium  and  the  charge  of 
law-breaking  on  a religious  institution,  may  use  the  name  of  the  institu- 
tion for  that  of  a political  party  and,  without  any  cooperation  by  the 
institution’s  leaders,  bring  them  into  disrepute  and  dishonor ; they  having 
no  legal  standing  before  the  law  and,  therefore,  being  unable  to  protect 
themselves. 


22 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


8th.  The  laws  that  thus  proscribe  religious  institutions  and  forbid 
them  even  corporate  existence  before  the  courts  of  the  State,  would  not 
proscribe  lodges  of  anarchists,  socialistic  societies,  or  in  fact  anything 
but  the  organizations  that  work  for- morality  and  religion. 

9th.  In  Mexico,  therefore,  there  could  be  no  institutions  like  the  Uni- 
versities of  Yale  (Presbyterian),  Wesleyan  (Methodist),  Chicago  (Bap- 
tist), any  more  than  like  Georgetown  (Catholic)  or  Harvard  (endowed 
by  individual  generosity)  ; for  the  State  alone  must  haVe  a monopoly  of 
education,  as  well  as  the  right  and  duty  to  suppress  religion. 

How  do  you  like  this  picture,  my  Protestant  brother  who  is  shouting 
that  “ the  Catholic  Church  got  wTiat  she  deserved  in  Mexico,”  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  for  two  full  generations  the  Catholic  Church  has  had 
to  exist  under  these  very  restrictions?  Do  you  think  that  a ninety-nine 
per  cent  Protestant  population  would  survive  two  generations  of  such 
laws?  Do  you  think  that  Catholics  in  Mexico  were  law-breakers,  as  Mr. 
Cabrera  charges,  when  they  patiently  turned  the  other  cheek  and  refused 
to  rise  and  spill  the  blood  of  these  petty  tyrants?  Wouldn’t  you  natu- 
rally say  that  religious  freedom  under  a stranger  ruler  was  better  than 
religious  slavery  under  native-born  devils?  Well,  the  Catholic  Church 
didn’t  do  any  of  these  things.  She  headed  no  revolutions,  but  condemned 
them  all,  as  she  did  the  one  against  Madero  at  Zamora.  She  knew  that 
he  who  “ takes  the  sword  will  perish  by  the  sword.”  She  attempted 
no  retaliation.  The  chief  charge  against  her  to-day  is  that  she  would 
not  foster  revolution,  even  when  headed  by  her  own  priests.  And  she 
stands  to-day  charged  with  what?  Peace,  nursing  the  sick,  caring  for 
the  fatherless,  instructing  the  ignorant,  visiting  the  afflicted,  soothing  the 
pillow  of  the  dying,  feeding  the  poor,  uplifting  the  Indian,  preaching  the 
gospel,  administering  the  Sacraments.  Mr.  Cabrera  says  that  the  Church 
obeyed  the  laws  under  the  long  reign  of  General  Diaz,  yet  now  he  wants 
to  kill  her.  Had  she  disobeyed  them  his  demand  would  have  been  the 
very  same. 

As  I read  and  commented  on  the  extraordinary  “ reply  ” of  this  gen- 
tleman, I wondered  if  he  and  his  friends  ever  really  thought  of  how 
ridiculous  they  are  in  the  eyes  of  honest  people;  how  strangely  like  a 
band  of  unthinking  savages  they  appear  to  those  who  are  accustomed  to 
the  ways  of  civilization ; how  utterly  without  common  sense  they  stand 
in  the  estimation  of  enlightened  men  and  women  of  the  twentieth  century. 
If  he  had  a cause  to  plead,  he  has  utterly  failed  to  give  even  a probability, 
nor  even  a possibility,  to  its  existence.  If  by  such  a statement  as  he  has 
made,  he  wished  to  “ answer  ” the  charges  of  “ The  Book  of  Red  and 
Yellow  ” in  a way  that  might  win  his  friends  some  sympathy  from  those 
who  do  not  agree  with  the  Catholic  Church,  he  has  effectually  destroyed 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


23 


his  chances  by  conceding  the  truth  of  every  charge,  and  attempting  to 
justify  crimes  by  proving  that  his  very  laws,  the  laws  of  a Republic,  are 
themselves  crimes  against  justice,  liberty,  and  the  most  basic  rights  of 
man.  To  free  his  chiefs  and  himself  from  the  charge  of  murder,  he 
quaintly  urges  that  some  one  said  “ Boo  ” to  them.  To  justify  wholesale 
robbery  by  some  degenerate  Mexicans,  he  urges  that  all  Mexico  is  a 
degenerate  in  the  family  of  the  nations.  To  excuse  the  most  outrageous 
of  tyrannies,  he  coolly  lays  the  flag  of  sacred  liberty  over  the  slain,  for- 
getting that  it  will  quickly  absorb  the  blood  beneath,  and  change  all  its 
bright  colors  of  hope  into  the  red  smudge  of  anarchy  and  destruction. 

Does  humanity  tramp  the  road  of  oppression  and  expect  it  to  end  in 
the  paradise  of  liberty  ? Does  Mr.  Cabrera  dream  that  sane  men  will  grant 
that  insanity  is  its  own  cure?  Does  he  think  that  Mexico  will  some  day 
say,  with  the  stench  of  his  rotting  victims  still  polluting  the  air,  with  the 
hunger  cries  of  her  starving  children  still  ringing  in  her  ears,  with  her  eyes 
still  sore  at  the  sight  of  her  ruins,  that  she  paid  not  overmuch  for  the  privi- 
lege of  exchanging  one  set  of  governmental  grafters  for  another  set,  who 
added  murder,  rape  and  sacrilege  to  the  original  crimes  against  her? 

You  have  led  your  country  on  the  way  of  irreligion.  Citizen  Cabrera. 
What  have  you  to  show  her  for  it  ? The  old  curse  of  the  Godless.  His- 
tory is  only  repeating  itself.  Man  learns  only  to  forget ; but  God  resents 
being  left  out  of  human  calculations  by  leaving  humans  to  calculate  alone. 
He  needs  do  no  more  to  punish  them.  The  pagans  said : “ Whom  the 

gods  wish  to  destroy,  they  first  make  mad.”  They  were  wrong.  Whom 
the  gods  wish  to  destroy,  they  leave  to  the  advice  and  counsel  of  such  as 
Luis  Cabrera  — and  the  bitter  end  is  swift,  sure  and  despairing. 


An  Open  Letter  to  American  Masons 

There  has  been  published  in  an  American  Masonic  journal  called  the 
New  Age,  a letter  from  Jose  Castellot,  Past  Sovereign  Grand  Commander 
of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Masons  of  Mexico,  which  has  been  copied 
by  several  other  Masonic  papers.  It  is  quite  evident  that  the  article  is 
published  with  the  approval  of  the  editors  of  American  Masonic  journals ; 
and  they  seem  to  take  it  for  granted  that  it  v/ill  meet  with  approval  by  the 
members  of  the  craft  in  the  United  States. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  unnatural  that  American  Masons  seek  to  lay  the 
case  for  Mexican  Masonry  before  their  brethren.  No  one  could  object 
to  that.  But,  since  we  are  constantly  assured  that  American  Masons  have 
no  affiliation  with  the  Latin  or  infidel  type,  does  it  seem  as  if  such  pub- 
lication will  have  the  effect  of  allaying  suspicion  and  increasing  good 
will  ? There  are  so  many  good  men  in  the  ranks  of  Masonry  in  the  United 
States,  so  many  men  who  have  been  constantly  and  consistently  friendly 
to  their  Catholic  fellow  citizens,  so  many  men  whose  honesty  is  with- 
out question,  that  many  Catholics  are  prone  to  judge  the  attitude  of 
Masons  in  this  country  toward  their  Church,  by  the  men  they  meet,  rather 
than  by  the  things  they  hear. 

But,  to-day  it  is  an  open  and  known  fact,  that  almost  every  Masonic 
publication  is  in  the  hands  of  anti-Catholics,  and  that  Masonic  publica- 
tions are,  in  a mild  form,  doing  the  same  work  of  bigotry  as  the  filthy 
Menace  and  its  ilk.  Members  of  the  craft  whom  we  have  always  looked 
upon  as  fair-minded  men,  high  in  the  esteem  of  all,  while  perhaps  in  the 
great  majority  among  Masons,  have  nevertheless  allowed  those  who  speak 
for  them  to  misrepresent  their  personal  views.  Masonic  journals  seem  to 
want  to  bring  American  Masonry  into  line  with  the  atheistic  lodges  that 
have  taken  such  a bloody  toll  of  Catholic  lives  in  Portugal  and  in  Mexico. 

I speak  under  correction,  for  I want  to  be  fair,  to  be  honest  in  dealing 
with  this  question.  It  is  serious,  and  it  is  destined  to  become  more  serious. 
We  are  in  the  midst  of  religious  strife,  which  Catholics  have  not  invited. 
We  believe  that  the  majority  of  Masons  do  not  want  it,  but  how  can  we 
help  thinking  that  there  is  danger  of  its  becoming  greater  when  we  read 
in  a Masonic  journal  such  articles  as  those  of  Sefior  Castellot?  I still 
believe,  however,  that  fair-minded  American  Masons  will  give  the  truth 
a hearing;  so  for  that  reason  I am  addressing  this  open  letter  to  them 
as  well  as  to  the  ex-Grand  Commander. 

►I- 

If  the  Senor  lived  up  to  some  of  the  solemn  declarations  in  the  open- 
ing of  his  article,  I would  not  invite  a quarrel  with  him.  He  “ stands 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


25 


squarely  for  religious  liberty,”  he  says,  and  he  “ pledges  his  honor  as  a 
Mason  ” to  that.  He  asserts  that  his  heart  “ goes  out  to  those  who  are 
wronged.”  He  demands  the  punishment  of  those  who  are  guilty  of 
atrocities.  He  raises  his  voice  “ in  protest  before  the  tribunal  of  univer- 
sal justice,  regardless  of  the  creed  involved.”  He  calls  the  outrages  against 
Catholic  priests  and  nuns  “ unspeakable.”  He  refers  in  this  connection 
to  “ the  looting  of  their  treasuries,  the  profanation  of  their  temples,  the 
ravishing  of  their  bodies  and  the  desecration  of  their  most  sacred  objects.” 
All  this  sounds  good.  The  door  by  which  he  may  escape  is  a small  one ; 
but  it  is  convenient.  Let  me  point  it  out : “ At  the  same  time,”  he  says, 
“ I strive  and  struggle  to  uphold  human  liberty,  whenever  any  religion 
attempts  to  strangle  it  ” — the  implication  being  that  the  Catholic  Church 
in  Mexico  having  attempted  to  strangle  human  liberty,  those  who  com- 
mitted these  unspeakable  outrages  went  perhaps  a little  too  far,  but  had 
excuses.  Now  human  liberty  is  a big  thing;  and  it  has  a great  cause. 
But  is  it  a bigger  thing  than  religious  liberty?  Frankly  I fail  to  see  how 
Sehor  Castellot  can  reconcile  offenses  against  religious  liberty  while  he 
is  struggling  for  human  liberty.  Where  is  the  distinction?  Still  I give 
him  credit  for  sincerity.  I always  fry  to  give  every  opponent  credit  for 
that.  So  if  I point  out  to  him  where  he  is  wrong,  will  he  accept  my  cor- 
rection kindly  ? I think  he  will,  for  I must  think  so,  since  I credit  him  with 
being  sincere.  All  right  then,  here  is  some  part  of  the  other  side: 

Sehor  Castellot  charges  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  warring  against 
Masonry.  The  Catholic  Church  wars  against  Masonry  to  this  extent: 
that  it  forbids  her  members  to  be  Masons,  for  the  very  obvious  reason 
that  Masonry  is  a religion  and  is  so  considered  by  Masonic  writers.  The 
Catholic  Church  believes  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  truth.  She  stands,  therefore,  in  opposition  to  all  doctrines  which  are 
opposed  to  her  own  teachings.  Thus,  for  example,  she  is  in  opposition 
to  Protestantism,  to  Mohammedism,  or  any  other  ism  that  is  in  funda- 
mental opposition  to  her.  The  Democratic  party  is  in  opposition  to  the 
Republican  party,  and  both  are  in  opposition  to  the  Progressive  party. 
All  of  them,  however,  manage  to  live  together  as  citizens  without  break- 
ing one  another’s  heads.  No  one  seriously  thinks  that  a Catholic  can 
be  a member  of  the  Methodist  Church  at  the  same  time  that  he  is  a mem- 
ber of  the  Catholic  Church.  Fundamentally,  our  quarrel  with  Masons  in 
this  country  is  the  same,  and  fair-minded  Masons  recognize  that  fact. 
We  oppose  Latin  Masonry  for  the  same  reason  that  American  Masons 
refuse  to  recognize  it  — because  it  is  a propagator  of  revolution  and 
infidelity. 

Now,  has  the  Catholic  Church  in  Mexico,  as  charged  by  Senor  Castellot, 
attempted  to  destroy  human  liberty?  I merely  turn  to  the  Laws  of  Mex- 


26 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


ico,  cite  them,  and  there  is  the  answer.  Here  is  a summary  I recently 
compiled,  of  the  anti-Catholic  laws  that  have  been  on  the  statute  books 
of  Mexico  for  fifty  years : 

“ When  the  Revolution  came,  and  with  it  the  Laws  of  Reform  of 
Benito  Juarez,  an  end  came  also  to  what  little  freedom  the  Church  had. 
She  was  despoiled  of  such  possessions  as  had  been  left  her.  She  was  for- 
bidden to  teach,  which  means  to  open  schools  of  any  kind,  except  of 
theology.  Her  ministers  even  could  not  dress  as  clerics.  The  law  of  May 
13,  1873,  forbade  any  religious  demonstration  outside  of  a church  build- 
ing, and  forbade  clergymen  or  Sisters  to  dress  in  any  way  that  would 
indicate  their  calling.  The  Constitution  of  1857  interfered  with  personal 
liberty  to  the  extent  of  forbidding  anybody  to  enter  a religious  order, 
and  refused  religious  orders  a legal  right  to  hold  property.  The  law  of 
July  12,  1859,  suppressed  religious  orders  and  religious  societies,  forbade 
the  foundation  of  new  congregations,  ordered  all  books,  manuscripts, 
prints  and  antiquities  belonging  to  such  orders  to  be  given  up.  The  law  of 
February  26  suppressed  female  communities.  The  law  of  July  12,  1859, 
took  away  all  property  from  the  clergy;  but  that  of  February  5,  1861, 
returned  to  the  Church  its  parochial  residences,  bishops’  houses,  etc.  Then 
September  25,  1873,  saw  a new  law  which  forbade  any  religious  institu- 
tion to  acquire  property  or  the  revenue  derived  from  it.  The  law  of 
December  14,  1874,  struck  at  the  right  of  the  clergy  to  receive  legacies. 
The  law  of  July  31,  1859,  away  from  the  clergy  the  right  to  manage 
or  have  anything  to  do  with  cemeteries.  The  law  of  February  2,  1861, 
took  from  the  Church  her  hospitals  and  charitable  institutions,  as  also 
did  a law  of  February  28  of  the  same  year.  To  make  it  more  certain  that 
the  Church  would  not  be  charitable,  the  law  of  August  27,  1904,  forbade 
clergymen  to  act  as  directors  and  administrators,  or  patrons  of  private 
charities,  and  extended  this  decree  even  to  include  those  delegated  by 
clergymen.  It  will  clearly  be  seen  that,  under  the  Constitution  and  Laws 
of  Reform,  the  clergy  had  little  power  left,  and  the  Church  little  chance  to 
uplift  the  people.” 

These  are  the  actual  laws ; yet  Sehor  Castellot  says  that,  for  the  last 
ten  years  especially.  Catholics  have  been  waging  a war  against  religious 
freedom.  If  we  have  been  waging  such  a war,  how  has  it  been  manifested, 
since  we  have  not  even  changed  the  laws  against  ourselves? 

What  then  have  we  been  doing  for  the  last  ten  years  that  is  so  repre- 
hensible ? Sehor  Castellot  says  we  worked  “ wholly  regardless  of  the 
means  employed.”  He  outlines  what  these  means  were.  He  says  we 
made  an  alliance  with  the  “ Cientificos,”  and  we  worked  through  the 
home.  With  what  “Cientificos”  did  we  make  an  alliance?  Sehor  Cas- 
tellot himself  states  that  the  leader  of  the  “ Cientificos,”  President  Diaz, 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


27 


was  himself  a fellow  member  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  Masonry.  Sehor 
Castellot,  on  the  authority  of  John  Kenneth  Turner,  was  himself  a “ Cien- 
tifico.”  Did  we  then  work  with  Masons?  He  states  also  that  the  “ Cien- 
tificos  ” were  in  power  and  “ controlled  the  will  of  the  President.”  Surely 
then  a number  of  Catholics  were  in  the  Diaz  cabinets.  Yet  during  the 
Presidency  of  Diaz  there  is  scarcely  a Catholic  to  be  found  on  the  list  of 
Mexican  officials.  In  the  latter  years  of  the  Diaz  Administration,  there 
is  one  — de  la  Barra.  During  the  Administration  of  President  Madero, 
which  is  praised  by  Sehor  Castellot,  there  was  one  more  — Lascourain. 
Yet  Mexico  is  a Catholic  country;  in  fact,  overwhelmingly  Catholic.  But 
there  have  been  fewer  Catholics  in  the  cabinets  of  Mexico  than  there 
have  been  in  the  cabinets  of  Presidents  of  the  United  States.  Sehor  Cas- 
tellot knows  that  this  condition  not  only  applied  to  the  cabinets,  but  to 
the  courts,  and,  in  fact,  to  the  legislatures  and  to  the  senates.  Does  this 
indicate  that  the  Church  was  meddling  in  politics?  Surely  if  she  had 
been  doing  that,  she  would  have  seen  to  it  that  she  had  some  representa- 
tion in  the  government  of  the  nation. 

But  why  should  the  Church  be  so  anxious  to  bring  about  the  fall  of 
Madero?  Pie  gave  Mexico  what  was  the  nearest  approach  to  a fair  and 
honest  election  ever  attempted  under  the  Republic.  Under  Madero  the 
Catholic  Church  looked  forward,  for  the  first  time  since  Juarez,  to  a hope 
for  religious  liberty  for  her  own  children.  Senor  Castellot  and  those 
who  believe  him  are  laboring  under  the  impression  that  the  Catholic  party, 
established  with  the  encouragement  of  Madero,  was  fighting  for  some- 
thing to  which  Catholics  were  not  entitled.  Read  over  again  the  sum- 
mary of  the  Laws  of  Reform.  The  Catholic  party  simply  wanted  to 
change  them.  Senor  Castellot,  according  to  his  own  principles,  ought  to 
have  helped  them,  for  he  says  very  beautifully  that  he  believes  in  relig- 
ious liberty.  There  would  have  been  no  Catholic  party  in  Mexico  had 
the  Catholics  had  even  a semblance  of  liberty.  There  need  not  have  been 
any  fighting  or  quarreling  on  the  subject,  if  Masons  in  Mexico  had  been 
willing  to  throw  their  strength  toward  securing  that  precious  boon.  It 
was  all  Catholics  asked  for. 

The  Senor  asserts  that  another  reprehensible  means  taken  by  the 
Church  in  its  struggle  was  to  influence  the  home.  Again  let  me  appeal 
to  honesty.  Since  Catholics  were  denied  religious  liberty,  why  should 
they  not  try  to  exert  every  legitimate  influence  possible  in  an  effort  to 
gain  it?  Is  there  any  reason  why  a man  should  not  be  influenced  by  his 
home  ? Is  there  anything  more  sacred  to  him,  outside  of  his  duty  to  God  ? 
Is  there  anything  that  gives  him  more  happiness,  more  peace  of  mind, 
more  solace  in  affliction,  and  more  encouragement  in  trouble?  Has  his 
wife  no  rights  which  he  is  bound  to  respect?  Must  she  bear  his  children 


28 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


in  pain,  and  bring  them  up  in  love  and  labor,  yet  have  nothing  to  say 
about  them?  Should  she  permit  a husband  to  banish  every  bit  of  relig- 
ious consolation  she  has?  Women  are  naturally  more  religious  than  men. 
Their  sensitive  natures  require  more  religious  solace  than  men  think 
they  themselves  need.  Is  it  not  fair  that  the  family  be  considered  a unit? 
While  the  man  speaks,  under  the  laws  of  Mexico,  for  his  family,  surely 
that  family  must  have  some  influence  on  what  he  says.  Where  are  there 
more  beautiful  and  satisfactory  homes  than  those  under  the  influence  of 
the  Catholic  Church?  Where  is  there  more  purity  in  the  family  life? 
Where,  therefore,  is  there  a better  influence  on  the  morality  of  any  peo- 
ple? Sehor  Castellot’s  idea  seems  to  be  that  the  “lord  and  master”  has 
the  right  to  persecute  everything  that  his  wife  and  children  hold  dear, 
and  that  they  must  not  open  their  mouths  in  protest  or  attempt  to  defend 
that  which  is  their  joy  and  consolation.  Is  this  common  sense?  If  the 
Sehor  can  prove  that  the  Catholic  religion  of  a wife  is  an  injury  to  her 
husband  and  a destruction  to  the  home,  he  can  do  something  that  no  other 
writer  would  even  have  the  temerity  to  attempt. 

You  say,  Sehor,  that  the  Church  “kept  amassing  and  enjoying  riches, 
and  kept  counselling  humility  while  exercising  tyranny.”  In  the  name  of 
fair  play,  tell  your  fellow  Masons  in  America  what  riches  the  Church  had. 
You  mention  prelates  and  dignitaries  “ clothed  in  vestments  of  gold  and 
crowned  with  mitres  studded  with  diamonds  and  rubies,  symbolizing  the 
tears  and  blood  of  the  faithful.”  I am  pretty  confident,  Sehor,  that  if  I 
took  the  diamonds  and  the  rubies  out  of  all  the  mitres  owned  by  a Mexi- 
can bishop,  you  would  very  carefully  examine  them  before  agreeing  to 
exchange  them  for  the  gold,  diamonds  and  rubies  possessed  by  your  own 
wife  and  daughters,  if  you  have  any.  I never  in  my  life,  and  I am  twenty 
years  a priest,  saw  a gold  mitre  studded  with  diamonds  and  rubies.  They 
exist,  but  so  do  polar  bears  — somewhere  else.  The  episcopal  rings  on 
the  fingers  of  the  Mexican  bishops  I saw  would  not  average  in  value  $25 
each.  The  vestments  used  in  ecclesiastical  ceremonies  are  like  the  robes 
of  your  lodges  — chiefly  tinsel ; and  the  precious  stones  are  usually  cut 
glass.  We  have  too  much  to  do  with  money  for  charity  and  missions  to 
buy  these  things  with  it.  There  are,  it  is  true,  some  old  and  valuable  vest- 
ments in  Mexico,  mostly  the  gifts  of  wealthy  people;  but  who  owns 
them  ? Why,  the  State,  since  the  State  took  everything  and  claims  ever>^- 
thing.  Who  owns  the  Churches,  built  by  the  piety  of  the  old  Spaniards 
and  very  often  through  the  free  labor  contributed  by  the  faithful  people? 
The  State.  Who  profited  when  these  Churches  and  other  religious  insti- 
tutions were  sold?  Not  the  Church,  for  she  was  simply  robbed,  but  pri- 
vate individuals.  Look  at  the  fortunes  that  were  founded  for  some  of 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


29 


your  faithful  “ liberals/’  some  of  the  very  “ Cientificos  ” you  say  we 
influenced.  What  about  the  Limantour  fortune;  but  the  Limantours 
are  only  one  family  that  grew  rich  on  the  robbery.  Was  he  a Mason? 
You  know,  Senor,  that  when  Juarez  robbed  the  Church  to  benefit  the  State, 
how  much  the  State  did  not  benefit,  but  you  know  who  did  benefit ; and 
you  know  that  in  many  a Mexican  lodge  to-day  are  the  descendants  of 
the  men  who  owe  their  private  fortunes  to  thefts  from  the  Catholic  Church. 
Why  conceal  these  things  from  American  Masons?  You  want  their  sym- 
pathy, why  not  tell  them  the  truth?  They’ll  honor  you  for  that  at  least. 

Where  are  the  riches  of  the  Church  ? Are  they  in  the  churches  ? But 
the  churches  are  not  ours.  Are  they  in  lands?  But  the  Church  has  no 
right  to  hold  lands.  Are  they  in  private  investments  held  in  the  name 
of  others  ? But  your  laws  confiscate  such  things  by  an  unjust  inheritance 
tax  in  three  transfers.  Personally,  I know  but  one  rich  Mexican  bishop, 
but  his  wealth  came  from  his  father’s  estate.  How  much  do  the  Mexican 
clergy  receive  in  salaries?  You  know,  my  dear  Senor,  that  they  receive 
very  much  less  than  Protestant  clergymen  receive  here  in  the  United 
States  ; and  that  while  many  of  them  live  in  poverty  none  live  in  affluence. 
What  do  the  people  give  to  them  ? In  Mexico  they  give  the  smallest  pos- 
sible coin,  because  it  is  the  po'or  who  support  religion  in  Mexico  as  in 
every  other  country,  and  the  little  sacrifice  they  make  would  not  amount 
to  25  cents  a year  for  each  worshiper.  You  know  all  this.  Everybody 
in  Mexico  knows.  Why  leave  your  Masonic  brethren  in  the  United  States 
under  the  supposition  that  the  Church  is  wringing  money  out  of  the  peo- 
ple to  support  her  clergy  in  luxury  and  wealth,  when  you  know  we  have 
no  luxury  and  you  know  we  have  no  wealth ; when  you  took  all  we  had, 
when  you  closed  our  schools,  stole  our  monasteries,  colleges  and  univer- 
sities, and  ended  up  by  outraging  our  nuns  and  shooting  our  priests? 
If,  for  fair  play’s  sake  you  will  not  tell  the  truth,  will  you  do  it  for  the 
sake  of  that  Heaven  you  invoke  so  piously  and  which,  I presume,  you 
hope  some  day  to  reach  — if  there  happens  to  be  one,  a fact,  which,  I pre- 
sume, you  doubt. 

Then  why,  Senor,  do  you  speak  of  the  “ general  unrest,”  and  intimate 
that  the  Revolution  was  a rising  of  all  the  people,  especially  the  poor? 
You  know  that  the  people  of  Mexico  never  had  a chance  to  vote,  never 
had  an  honest  election,  and  that  even  the  attempted  honesty  under  Madero 
was  a failure.  You  know  that  the  officials,  not  Catholics,  but  many  of 
them  Masons,  manipulated  the  ballots  to  suit  themselves.  You  know  that 
entire  haciendas  were  voted  as  a unit,  and  as  the  Jefe  Politico  directed. 
You  know  that  the  Revolutionist  army  does  not  represent  the  people  of 
Mexico.  If  it  does,  why  did  they  take  the  arms  away  from  the  people, 
debase  the  coinage  and  suppress  the  newspapers?  You  know  that  the 


30 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


people  are  pious  and  good,  and  that  they  want  their  Church  and  their 
religious  ceremonies.  You  know  that  they  still  speak  of  the  days  when 
they  could  have  their  religious  processions  and  worship  God  in  the  open. 
You  know  that  if  a poll  were  taken  of  Mexico  to-day,  that  there  would 
not  be  a Revolutionist  allowed  to  remain  in  the  country,  and  that  the 
Church  would  have  back  her  freedom ; and  you  know  that  a minority 
which  controlled  the  power,  because  it  controlled  the  army,  has  imposed 
its  will  upon  the  people  of  Mexico  for  fifty  years.  Why  not  tell  these 
things  to  your  Masonic  brethren  in  America,  and  let  them  get  a fair  idea 
of  just  exactly  what  the  situation  is? 

But  you  say  that  you  were  “ familiar  with  all  the  inner  history  of 
events,”  and  you  say,  too,  that  “ Masonry  laid  the  foundation  of  its 
patriotic  and  disinterested  work,  in  open  fight,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
against  the  powerful  interests  already  created.”  This  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  Mexican  Masonry  did  actually  interfere  in  politics  and  openly 
fought  against  the  Catholic  Church.  But  the  insistence  here  has  been 
that  Masonry  is  purely  a fraternal  organization,  which  had  nothing  to 
do  with  politics.  American  Masons  believe  that,  and  yet,  telling  them 
that  such  is  not  the  case,  you  still  ask  for  sympathy.  You  rail  against 
the  “ Cientificos,”  who  were  all  Masons  and  few  of  whom  were  even 
nominally  Catholics.  You  speak  of  their  overthrowing  the  “ whole  eco- 
nomic system  and  upsetting  the  national  credit.”  For  Heaven’s  sake, 
where  is  the  national  credit  to-day?  Where  is  the  money  that  Diaz 
himself  left  in  the  treasury?  It  was  there  when  he  went  away,  but  it 
was  not  there  when  Huerta  came  into  power.  You  say  that  the  clergy 
would  not  “ sacrifice  the  power  which  afforded  them  the  means  to  carry 
out  the  works  of  charity  begun.”  Under  the  laws  where  did  they  have 
the  power?  And  why  should  they  be  called  upon  to  sacrifice  the  means 
that  might  have  been  given  them  for  such  a purpose?  Would  any  Mason 
in  the  United  States  ask  hospitals  to  sacrifice  endowments,  or  the  churches 
to  sacrifice  their  missionary  funds?  Then  why  ask  American  Masons  to 
approve  for  Mexico  what  they  would  not  dream  of  asking  in  the  United 
States?  • 

You  certainly  tell  the  truth,  Senor,  when  you  say  that  the  revolution 
“ incited  by  passion  or  spurred  on  by  sordid  interests  has  degenerated 
into  the  worst  form  of  anarchy,  whose  end  no  one  can  predict.”  All  that 
is  perfectly  true,  but  who  brought  on  this  anarchy  ? The  same  sordid  inter- 
ests, not  represented  by  Masonry,  but  represented  by  men  who  used 
Masonry  to  promote  their  own  selfish  aims  and  purposes.  It  was  pelf 
that  the  leaders  wanted,  and  they  knew  those  in  power  would  give  them 
that.  They  played  fast  and  loose  with  the  liberties  of  the  people.  They 
saw  to  it  that  laws  were.made  to'do  away  with  religious  liberty.  -Th’^ 


THE  RELIGIOUS  QUESTION  IN  MEXICO 


31 


deliberately  stole  the  wealth  that  had  been  consecrated  to  religion  and 
charity.  In  the  name  of  “ liberalism,”  they  became  the  most  illiberal  of 
all  men,  and  now  wade  knee-deep  in  blood.  They  whine  out  their  com- 
plaints against  the  Church,  and  point  to  her,  gagged  and  bound  as  they 
left  her  fifty  years  ago,  to  charge  that  she  is  responsible  for  the  crimes 
for  which  they  laid  the  foundation,  and  which  are  only  a consequence 
of  their  own  greed  and  lust.  Why,  Senor,  for  fifty  years  you  have  had 
Mexico  in  your  hands,  and  is  this  what  you  have  of  it  ? 

You  say,  let  the  American  Roman  Catholic  clergy  allay  its  anger 
against  Mexican  Masonry  and  carefully  weigh  its  attacks  before  making 
them,  in  order  not  to  fall  into  untruth  and  exhibit  itself  before  the  public 
relying  on  theories  and  stories  invented  for  the  purpose.”  My  dear  Senor, 
are  the  Laws  of  Reform  theories  and  stories?  If  they  are,  then  the  com- 
pilation of  the  laws  of  Mexico,  which  you  made  yourself,  must  be  lies. 
We  have  cited  your  laws.  We  have  pointed  out  only  what  these  laws 
have  effected.  We  have  shown  you  clearly  that  you  gave  no  religious  lib- 
erty to  Mexico.  We  have  itemized  in  detail  a few  of  the  outrages  com- 
mitted, and  which  you  yourself  now  say  were  committed.  What  stories 
have  we  told  other  than  these  ? You  are  convicted  out  of  your  own  mouth, 
not  out  of  anything  that  we  have  said.  But  in  order  that  you  may  see 
that  we  are  fair,  or  rather  that  American  Masons  may  see  that  we  are 
fair,  let  us  here  and  now  make  a proposition  for  consideration  to  you  and 
,your  brethren,  and  to  all  the  Liberals  of  Mexico  for  that  matter,  and  see 
if  you  will  consent  to  it : 

Will  you  work  to  give  to  the  Catholic  Church  in  Mexico  the  same  relig- 
ious liberty  that  is  enjoyed  by  the  Methodist  Church,  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  the  Congregational  Church,  the  Mormon  Church,  the  Quaker 
Church,  the  Baptist  Church,  or  any  other  church  existing  in  the  United 
States?  Will  you  work  to  give  to  Catholic  parents  in  Mexico,  the  same 
rights  that  Protestant  parents  have  in  this  country,  that  Masonic  parents 
have  in  this  country?  Americans  think  that  this  is  religious  liberty. 
American  Masons  think  so.  Do  you  think  so?  If  you  do,  very  well, 
pledge  to  try  to  get  it  for  Mexico.,  If  you  don’t,  do  us  this  favor  at  least: 
don’t  try  to  deceive  your  American  brethren.  Let  them  know  just  where 
you  stand.  Tell  them  you  don’t  want  religious  liberty  in  Mexico,  or  you 
can  not  give  it  because  if  you  do,  the  Church  will  be  honored  as  she 
deserves,  will  receive  back  her  -stolen-Iiouses  of  worship,  will  reopen  her 
schools  and  universities,  will  begin  to  lift  those  of  your  Indians  that  are 
now,  because  you  killed  our  schools,  in  barbarism,  and  will  teach  your 
people  the  Ten  Commandments,  including  this  one:  “Thou  shalt  not 
steal.”  We  have  an  expressive  saying,  Senor,  that  covers  your  case : “ Put 
up  or  shut  up.” 


KEEP  POSTED  ABOUT 
MEXICO 

By  reading  the  official  paper  of  the 
Catholic  Church  Extension  Society — 

Extension  Magazine 


SPREAD  THE  TRUTH  AND 
HELP  THE  CAUSE 

by  securing  one  new  subscriber  for 
EXTENSION  MAGAZINE 
The  High-Class 

Illustrated  Catholic  Magazine 

ONLY  $2.00  A YEAR 


Extension  Magazine,  Drawer  S,  Chicago,  111. 


